Speech of President Obama in Cairo - Essay Example

President Obama’s Speech in Cairo Question One In Cairo, the timeless US president Barrack Obama gave a speech that no other American president in the past has ever given. He spoke to Arabs and Muslims as an equal, not the usual antagonist position of other US presidents stating actions that they must take to gain American acceptance (Huff Post). Aiming to heal the rift between the West and Islam for decades, the “new beginning” by President Obama portrayed his eloquence trademark as well as his ambition of bridging the significant divide between the two groups. Surprisingly, he did not launch any Middle East peace plan or policy program, but his tone of the speech had enough impact. Throughout his speech, the radical idea was that of respect for the Muslim and Arab world. He believed that this was an issue that those who had been in power had omitted. His speech addresses six issues that cause tension between the two divides, including violent extremists, the situation between Israelis, Palestinians, and Arabs, responsibilities and rights of nations on nuclear weapons, democracy, religious freedom, and women’s rights (Huff Post). Personally, the second issue of the situation between Israelis, Palestinians, and Arabs. Question Two The situation between Israeli, Palestine, and the Arab world is the greatest source of crisis in the Middle East. The conflict in the Middle East, which began in the early 1990s, has been the source of serious economic downturn in the world. Despite countries endeavors to heal the prevailing state of economy, this conflict has remained an obstacle. The Middle East region exports the largest quantities of oil products to the US, Europe, and other parts of the world. The persistent conflicts between the Israelis and the Palestinians often result to surging of oil prices, driving the global economy into a recession. At a recession, every plan by the government in power stops progressing. Worst of all, business, which earn governments revenue get to a point of shut down. Moreover, a majority of the Arab states take advantage of the crisis to achieve their own gains and misgivings (Huff Post). Question Three President Obama downplays Tehran by highlighting the diplomatic recognition of Israel by Saudi Arabia, with attempts to hasten the two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestine conflict. President Obama addresses the Middle East conflict beginning with the Palestinian suffering from 1967 (Huff Post). On what Palestinians refer to as the nakba catastrophe; President Obama expresses his acknowledgment of the issue than any other American president, urging for the cease of Israeli settlement. However, he also defends the Israeli, referring to US ties with Israeli as unbreakable, and proceeding to condemn Muslim Holocaust and anti-Semitism denials as hateful, ignorant, and baseless. Moreover, he urged Hamas (which has majority of support from Palestinians) to stop acts of violence, recognize the rights of Israeli existence and recognize past agreements, promising America’s alignment policies with countries that promote peace. In his speech, the president preaches for peace among settlers. His main emphasis was violence against children and old women by Hamas, stating that their actions surrender moral authority rather than claiming it. Any form of violence, precisely violence against children and old women to him, is an inhuman act that should be shunned. He gives an example of American struggle for civil rights against slavery and apartheid, asking Hamas to follow a similar non-violent path of resistance (Huff Post). Considering the fact that president Obama is an African American, this statement has significant weight attached. In summary, president Obama exhibits the American devotion to Israel and Palestine. In this, he advocates for a secure and safe state for both nations through the two-state solution. His conditions are that Israeli must stop settlement and the Hamas (supported by Palestinians) must stop terror and violence (Huff Post). The president promised to work on the conflict to the end, strategically using emotional and evenhanded language. Although this conflict has remained for decades, with historians believing that it might never end, the president believed that everything possible should be done for people to stay peacefully. Despite his intention to push the Israeli hard on the issue of settlement, he acknowledges that feelings of Jews over the country that was created after the slaughter of more than six million Jews. Obama points out that he will not endanger the security of Israeli, however, America will not assume concerns of legitimate Palestinians for opportunity, dignity, and their own state. Moreover, Obama highlights how the Arab world takes advantage of the Israeli-Palestine crisis for their own misgivings, promising to align with the nations that seek peace (Huff Post). Question Four President Obama’s speech was a mixed bag. It is evident that he was in a controversial position, having so many interests to cover in the speech making it impossible to please all the stakeholders. Moreover, the concepts he was talking about would take probably a year to condense and cover into one speech. He kept American recriminations and apology tour minimal, recognized the long-term relation with Israel, and condemned the Arab world for taking advantage of the Israeli-Palestine crisis. Obama also tried to intermingle with Islam, quoting the bible, the Talmud, and the Quran (Huff Post). Portions of the speech were against western colonialism, including American colonialism, aligned with a tone of antithesis for colonial demarcation. In general, the design of the speech was in a manner such as to encourage the greater American goal, not sabotage. While the speech was not meant to eradicate the decades-long mistrust as Obama puts it, it surely gave high hopes and expectations to both the western divide and the Islam world. The beginning of the speech was the strongest, lengthily addressing issues of violent extremists and the situation of Israeli, Palestine, and the Arab world. The speech also focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, taking a backhanded slap at former President Bush and the avoidable war in Iraq (Huff Post). He also highlighted the intention of withdrawing American troops from the nations. He then addressed the issues of women rights, and democracy, presenting similar points that his predecessors could have made. His criticism of president Bush especially his foreign policy change, which seem convincing with the current changes in the globe (Huff Post). He also displays his stand on beliefs of democracy, freedom, and human rights by boldly pronouncing the universality of religious freedom, women rights, and democracy, considering that Egypt is a nation that upholds Islam without tolerance. However, some of the points of the speech were rather weak and flat. President Obama seems to insinuate that Palestinians suffering was Israeli’s fault in occupying Gaza. He does not mention that after Israel withdrew from the contended Gaza and West Bank, it experienced increased attack and violence. Moreover, his speech does not contain accounts of regular and constant rocket attacks against the residents of Sderot. His speech made it seem like a humanitarian crisis was facing Palestinians, all at the making of Israelis. He also assumed the humanitarian crisis that the Israelis face because of regular rocket attack threats (Huff Post). The lack of such fundamental accounts may highlight some form of bias from Obama (or his administration), making the two-state solution dependent on the settlement issue. Another weak assertion from the speech was that concerning responsibilities and rights of nations on nuclear weapons. His condemnation of Iran nuclear weapons and consequent expansion was naive and weak. He states Iran’s nuclear weapon activities as non-proliferating, but later argues that any nation (including Iran), have the right to expand nuclear weapon peacefully (Huff Post). President Obama did not highlight what peaceful expansion of nuclear weapons was, nor does he at least give an example. Therefore, he gives a thumps-up to Iran to expand their nuclear weapons peacefully, but does not give any inclination concerning how they are to show that their expansion is peaceful. Consequently, the speech gives Iranians an opportunity to selectively read and interpret this as an okay sign to proceed with the expansion. Moreover, it is rather illogical to think that nations like North Korea and Iran would halt their nuclear weapon expansion plans due to a request by a US president, let alone Obama, to reduce the accumulating nuclear weapons in the globe. Despite the fact that it is an important goal for president Obama’s administration, it is certainly not worth sacrificing. Ultimately, it gives Iranians free reign towards expanding nuclear weapons. Another point that the president did not put across clearly was his argument over religious freedom and women rights. Considering that he was primarily addressing Muslim nations and the Arab world, he compromised his argument of religious freedom by urging Islam to embrace what seems like gender equality (Huff Post). Considering the fact that Islam upholds the hierarchical type of family and society with the father strictly leading a household, his religious freedom argument then goes out of the window. Religious freedom means believing in religious teachings, which translates to males being the head of the society, contrary to the gender equality concept. Work Cited Hoff Post. Obama Speech in Cairo: Video, Full Text. Web Feb. 17, 2012. Read More